- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:36:09 +0200 (CEST)
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Hello all. 8-)
This message is a summary of the discussion that followed after
my email [1] to the soapbuilders' list.
The discussion has shown some alternatives to my original
proposal, so the options could be:
1. original: "<callName>ReturnValue"
(like getStockQuoteReturnValue)
2. reusing a name already present: "<resultStructName>"
(like getStockQuoteResult)
3. static: "SOAP-RPC-Return-Value"
4. an attribute on the return value
(like <return rpc:returnValue="true">)
5. an attribute on the structure
(like <getStockQuoteResult rpc:hasReturnValue="true">)
The responses indicated no problems with implementation of any
of these proposals. Nobody seemed to argue strongly that the
third proposal may be prone to name conflicts.
Most support seemed to support 3 because it is the most
straightforward approach.
The only (potential) issues that remain are
1) constrained clients not wanting to support the whole data
model,
2) name conflicts with static naming in the proposal no. 3.
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
http://www.idoox.com/
[1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/soapbuilders/message/4907
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 13:36:12 UTC